Key result
Abacavir shows no significant increase in MACE risk versus tenofovir formulations in HIV.
Why the study?
Does abacavir increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to tenofovir in people living with HIV at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk?
Cohort (n=6,114)
Does abacavir increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to tenofovir in people living with HIV at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk?
Hazard Ratio: 1.5 (95% CI 0.9–2.3)
Abacavir-containing antiretroviral therapies are associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to tenofovir backbones in people living with HIV at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk.
Background: Prior analyses suggest that the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) abacavir (ABC), but not tenofovir (TFV), is associated with a 2-fold increase in the hazard of myocardial infarction. the Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV (REPRIEVE) is ideally suited to evaluate the role of ABC and the TFV backbones, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Methods: We compared hazard of first MACE among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk using ABC (n = 883), TAF (n = 957), and TDF (n = 4274) at entry. Overlap weights balanced biasing factors, including age, sex at birth, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, CD4 count, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and anchor antiretroviral therapy. Associations between entry NRTI and MACEs were estimated using a marginal Cox proportional hazards model. Change of NRTI, or "switching," was common during follow-up. Additional associations were estimated by further censoring at first switch and applying time-updated inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW). Results: Baseline-adjusted associations suggest clinically relevant increases in hazard of first MACE for ABC versus TAF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .9-2.3]) and ABC versus TDF (HR, 1.4 [95% CI, .9-2.1]), but not TAF versus TDF (HR, 0.9 [95% CI, .6-1.5]). With censoring at switch, HRs increased to 1.6 (95% CI, .9-2.7) for ABC versus TAF, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.2-3.4) for ABC versus TDF, and 1.2 (95% CI, .7-2.2) for TAF versus TDF. The largest HR observed was for ABC versus TDF and myocardial infarction (IPCW HR, 3.5 [95% CI, 1.3-9.4]). Conclusions: Antiretroviral therapies with ABC backbones are associated with an increase in MACE compared to TFV backbones among people living with HIV at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02344290.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in HIV at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk (n=6,114). Abacavir (ABC) vs. Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) was evaluated on first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.9-2.3). Abacavir was associated with an increased hazard of first MACE compared to tenofovir alafenamide (HR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.3) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (HR 1.4; 95% CI 0.9-2.1) in HIV patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: